Malcolm X thread.

[torgriffith]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So according to the sentiments expressed in this thread by certain black NTers, Is Obama a bad thing for black people? Would black people prefer if Obama (who has been compared to MLK as an Uncle Tom and puppet) had never been elected?

Is Obama the puppet of the white man and a conspiracy to suppress the black race?

Word to that Immortal Technique song.

It's all about the image projected. Oba,a is related to Bush and Cheney. It's just time for them to show  black manblack woman image in the whitehouse. 

"It's about sending a message."

So you didn't answer my question, so because of "pride" and "sending" a message....would you rather NOT have had MLK or Obama exist? And be honest would this extremely pro-black, separatist, militant black President have won?

And don't a lot of black people in this country have a distant white relative? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't Malcom X himself have a few drops of white blood. Dude looks whiter than Obama or is he just real "light skinned".


So Obama didn't win because he was voted for, he won cause SOMEONE (Who you still haven't defined or pointed out) wanted to see a Black Man or Black Woman in the white house?

Now this someone, if they have a grand master plan to hurt the black race.....how the hell did this help?


I want you to think deeply about what I'm asking before you answer. I really want to know.

I didn't say that. It's just when you look at a media outlet, (TV, RADIO) you recognize figure heads and archetypes who represent ideals. Like how one cheers for the character they can relate too in a movie.  These are the people (MLK, Obama, Malcom X) that represent characters and that's how politics work. They give you the character that you can look at and believe without even knowing who the person really is. And when you see a black woman and a black man now residing in the white house, it is a message to the world on what time it is in "his"story. The president is not the king of America. He is the ceo of the corporation and the board of directors control all the decisions basically like any other corporation. 
And it's not because he is related to a white family. It's because he's related to the nazi lineage regime that's what I'm saying and all throughout history it has been characters from the same few families acting out roles carrying on their own agenda. We are pretty familiar with nazism on the surface from our education system that force fed us the history of the holocaust and the nazi army. Little is touched on until recently in movies about the social experimentation, manipulation of politics and gov't etc.(Shutter Island type movies). This idea of a country and where it's heading is just another aspect of  the agenda. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CJ863

great thread up until mr. not comfortable in my own skin attempted to derail it. NT thoroughly surprised me with this one.

LOL so being Pro-Obama (more or less) and MLK and Nelson Mandela makes me uncomfortable in my own skin. Are "some black" NTers serious?

  
NTs idea of what it means to be "pro-black"/racist is one of the most confusing and nonsensical things ever.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CJ863

great thread up until mr. not comfortable in my own skin attempted to derail it. NT thoroughly surprised me with this one.

LOL so being Pro-Obama (more or less) and MLK and Nelson Mandela makes me uncomfortable in my own skin. Are "some black" NTers serious?

  
NTs idea of what it means to be "pro-black"/racist is one of the most confusing and nonsensical things ever.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So according to the sentiments expressed in this thread by certain black NTers, Is Obama a bad thing for black people? Would black people prefer if Obama (who has been compared to MLK as an Uncle Tom and puppet) had never been elected?

Is Obama the puppet of the white man and a conspiracy to suppress the black race?

Word to that Immortal Technique song.

It's all about the image projected. Oba,a is related to Bush and Cheney. It's just time for them to show  black manblack woman image in the whitehouse. 

"It's about sending a message."

So you didn't answer my question, so because of "pride" and "sending" a message....would you rather NOT have had MLK or Obama exist? And be honest would this extremely pro-black, separatist, militant black President have won?

And don't a lot of black people in this country have a distant white relative? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't Malcom X himself have a few drops of white blood. Dude looks whiter than Obama or is he just real "light skinned".


So Obama didn't win because he was voted for, he won cause SOMEONE (Who you still haven't defined or pointed out) wanted to see a Black Man or Black Woman in the white house?

Now this someone, if they have a grand master plan to hurt the black race.....how the hell did this help?


I want you to think deeply about what I'm asking before you answer. I really want to know.

I didn't say that. It's just when you look at a media outlet, (TV, RADIO) you recognize figure heads and archetypes who represent ideals. Like how one cheers for the character they can relate too in a movie.  These are the people (MLK, Obama, Malcom X) that represent characters and that's how politics work. They give you the character that you can look at and believe without even knowing who the person really is. And when you see a black woman and a black man now residing in the white house, it is a message to the world on what time it is in "his"story. The president is not the king of America. He is the ceo of the corporation and the board of directors control all the decisions basically like any other corporation. 
And it's not because he is related to a white family. It's because he's related to the nazi lineage regime that's what I'm saying and all throughout history it has been characters from the same few families acting out roles carrying on their own agenda. We are pretty familiar with nazism on the surface from our education system that force fed us the history of the holocaust and the nazi army. Little is touched on until recently in movies about the social experimentation, manipulation of politics and gov't etc.(Shutter Island type movies). This idea of a country and where it's heading is just another aspect of  the agenda. 

So do you believe there is only one agenda that exists that has little to do with race and all of us black or white are being manipulated? Do you believe all the percieved different agendas that exist in politics are distractions and none of that really matters? Do you believe everything the government does, no matter how much good a government does, is all at face value?



Eg. Obama's healthcare plan and "Social" programs he's getting called a socialist/ Nazi for by your definition would hurt corporations tremendously. Is this a price the corporations puppeteering Obama have to pay for a grand masterplan to make even more money?

Anyhow I also want more info on this family and what their agenda is. I'm guessing by your post, it's to make as much money as possible.....how are they being helped by Obama's presidency?

I don't know if that makes any sense.


   Was Obama "christined" by these people to become President? Was everything in Obama's life controlled from birth with the ultimate goal of making him the president, to keep this family in power?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So according to the sentiments expressed in this thread by certain black NTers, Is Obama a bad thing for black people? Would black people prefer if Obama (who has been compared to MLK as an Uncle Tom and puppet) had never been elected?

Is Obama the puppet of the white man and a conspiracy to suppress the black race?

Word to that Immortal Technique song.

It's all about the image projected. Oba,a is related to Bush and Cheney. It's just time for them to show  black manblack woman image in the whitehouse. 

"It's about sending a message."

So you didn't answer my question, so because of "pride" and "sending" a message....would you rather NOT have had MLK or Obama exist? And be honest would this extremely pro-black, separatist, militant black President have won?

And don't a lot of black people in this country have a distant white relative? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't Malcom X himself have a few drops of white blood. Dude looks whiter than Obama or is he just real "light skinned".


So Obama didn't win because he was voted for, he won cause SOMEONE (Who you still haven't defined or pointed out) wanted to see a Black Man or Black Woman in the white house?

Now this someone, if they have a grand master plan to hurt the black race.....how the hell did this help?


I want you to think deeply about what I'm asking before you answer. I really want to know.

I didn't say that. It's just when you look at a media outlet, (TV, RADIO) you recognize figure heads and archetypes who represent ideals. Like how one cheers for the character they can relate too in a movie.  These are the people (MLK, Obama, Malcom X) that represent characters and that's how politics work. They give you the character that you can look at and believe without even knowing who the person really is. And when you see a black woman and a black man now residing in the white house, it is a message to the world on what time it is in "his"story. The president is not the king of America. He is the ceo of the corporation and the board of directors control all the decisions basically like any other corporation. 
And it's not because he is related to a white family. It's because he's related to the nazi lineage regime that's what I'm saying and all throughout history it has been characters from the same few families acting out roles carrying on their own agenda. We are pretty familiar with nazism on the surface from our education system that force fed us the history of the holocaust and the nazi army. Little is touched on until recently in movies about the social experimentation, manipulation of politics and gov't etc.(Shutter Island type movies). This idea of a country and where it's heading is just another aspect of  the agenda. 

So do you believe there is only one agenda that exists that has little to do with race and all of us black or white are being manipulated? Do you believe all the percieved different agendas that exist in politics are distractions and none of that really matters? Do you believe everything the government does, no matter how much good a government does, is all at face value?



Eg. Obama's healthcare plan and "Social" programs he's getting called a socialist/ Nazi for by your definition would hurt corporations tremendously. Is this a price the corporations puppeteering Obama have to pay for a grand masterplan to make even more money?

Anyhow I also want more info on this family and what their agenda is. I'm guessing by your post, it's to make as much money as possible.....how are they being helped by Obama's presidency?

I don't know if that makes any sense.


   Was Obama "christined" by these people to become President? Was everything in Obama's life controlled from birth with the ultimate goal of making him the president, to keep this family in power?

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

ShoxBb433 wrote:

Some main points that stuck from reading his autobiography was how he proclaimed christianity was the slave master's religion and blacks have no business practicing Christianity which I agree with. He put so much faith into Elijah Muhammad/Nation of Islam and not only was Elijah Muhammad a hypocrite, the religion ended up getting Malcolm killed.

This.....I mean technically speaking black people have no business practicing Islam either.

  

Anyhow MLK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MALCOM X, I'll just leave it at that.
There you go again. Why did you feel the need to suggest that one is better than the other? Why couldn't you just suggest tha they were equally important to the struggle for civil rights? Don't you see what you've done there? White people are very comfortable with King, and that is because King would not hit them back if they swung first. This is the ONLY reason most "Whites" like King. The Non violent position he held allows him to be the "black leader" to accept. However, Malcolm was the threat. You hit me? I'm going to hit you back, twice as hard! So this brought a wonderful balance for those racist whites to deal with. You either deal with Malcolm, who'd put a foot in your *** if you brought your "dogs", or you deal with Martin, who will at least give you a chance at being "civil".

_


[table][tr][td]Religion
By: Kimberly Sambol-Tosco

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]page 1 | 2 [/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td][table][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]Frederick de Wit's Map of Africa, ca. 1688. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. [/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]At the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, African religious beliefs and practices were numerous and varied. In addition to a wide variety of polytheistic religions, a significant portion of the continent had for centuries fallen under Islamic influence. Despite this diversity, there were some common threads across cultural groups. For instance, West African societies, the largest source for American slaves, shared a belief in a Supreme Creator, a chief deity among lesser gods, to whom they prayed and made sacrifices. Through laws and customs honoring the gods, the ancestors of one's people, and the elderly, West Africans sought a harmonious balance between the natural and spiritual worlds. Further, they made music and dance vital components of their worship practices. Enslaved men and women kept the rites, rituals, and cosmologies of Africa alive in America through stories, healing arts, song, and other forms of cultural expression, creating a spiritual space apart from the white European world.

Africans and African descendents working in the early modern Atlantic commercial system were exposed to the world of European Christianity as early as the fifteenth century, when Portuguese missionaries came to the coasts of Africa. Some slaves, therefore, brought Christian beliefs with them when they were thrust into slavery. Others converted in America. During the seventeenth century blacks in the Dutch New Netherlands and Spanish Florida baptized their children and were married by the church. In part, this participation in the dominant European religion reflected (and helped to bring about) a colonial society in which blacks were more fully integrated and enjoyed greater rights than later generations of slaves would. [table][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]"Doop-Boeck" -- BAPTISMS FROM 1639 TO 1697 IN THE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH, New York. Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York.[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]However, slaves also saw conversion to Christianity as a road to freedom. In the early years of settlement, for instance, fugitive slaves from South Carolina, headed for Florida, where the Spanish Crown promised them freedom as a reward for conversion. Slaveholders in the British North American colonies became increasingly fearful that Christianization of slaves would lead to demands for emancipation. In 1667 Virginia passed a law declaring that conversion did not change the status of a person from slave to free. Other colonies passed similar laws during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. [/td][/tr][/table]

  
Not only did this change how American slavery worked, but it also changed Christianity around the world. This brought in the "pie in the sky" version of christianity, suggesting that you wait until you get to "heaven" to gain riches. However, there was still a problem for those who were deemed "black". as "The Curse of Ham" suggested that not only Black people serve white people in this life, but in the "hereafter" as well.
[h1]Curse of Ham[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Noah damning Ham, 19th century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov

The Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to a story in the Book of Genesis 9:20-27 in which Ham's father Noah places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, after Ham "saw his father's nakedness" because of drunkenness in Noah's tent.

Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.[sup][1][/sup]

The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup] They were often called Hamites and were believed to have descended through Canaan or his older brothers. Proponents of slavery in the US increasingly invoked the 'curse of Ham' in the US during the 19th century, as a response to the growing abolitionist movement.[sup][4


____
[/sup]
Malcolm was a great man, stood for the right thing, then was a symbol of Black masculinity when it was seriously needed.

  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

ShoxBb433 wrote:

Some main points that stuck from reading his autobiography was how he proclaimed christianity was the slave master's religion and blacks have no business practicing Christianity which I agree with. He put so much faith into Elijah Muhammad/Nation of Islam and not only was Elijah Muhammad a hypocrite, the religion ended up getting Malcolm killed.

This.....I mean technically speaking black people have no business practicing Islam either.

  

Anyhow MLK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MALCOM X, I'll just leave it at that.
There you go again. Why did you feel the need to suggest that one is better than the other? Why couldn't you just suggest tha they were equally important to the struggle for civil rights? Don't you see what you've done there? White people are very comfortable with King, and that is because King would not hit them back if they swung first. This is the ONLY reason most "Whites" like King. The Non violent position he held allows him to be the "black leader" to accept. However, Malcolm was the threat. You hit me? I'm going to hit you back, twice as hard! So this brought a wonderful balance for those racist whites to deal with. You either deal with Malcolm, who'd put a foot in your *** if you brought your "dogs", or you deal with Martin, who will at least give you a chance at being "civil".

_


[table][tr][td]Religion
By: Kimberly Sambol-Tosco

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]page 1 | 2 [/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td][table][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]Frederick de Wit's Map of Africa, ca. 1688. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. [/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]At the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, African religious beliefs and practices were numerous and varied. In addition to a wide variety of polytheistic religions, a significant portion of the continent had for centuries fallen under Islamic influence. Despite this diversity, there were some common threads across cultural groups. For instance, West African societies, the largest source for American slaves, shared a belief in a Supreme Creator, a chief deity among lesser gods, to whom they prayed and made sacrifices. Through laws and customs honoring the gods, the ancestors of one's people, and the elderly, West Africans sought a harmonious balance between the natural and spiritual worlds. Further, they made music and dance vital components of their worship practices. Enslaved men and women kept the rites, rituals, and cosmologies of Africa alive in America through stories, healing arts, song, and other forms of cultural expression, creating a spiritual space apart from the white European world.

Africans and African descendents working in the early modern Atlantic commercial system were exposed to the world of European Christianity as early as the fifteenth century, when Portuguese missionaries came to the coasts of Africa. Some slaves, therefore, brought Christian beliefs with them when they were thrust into slavery. Others converted in America. During the seventeenth century blacks in the Dutch New Netherlands and Spanish Florida baptized their children and were married by the church. In part, this participation in the dominant European religion reflected (and helped to bring about) a colonial society in which blacks were more fully integrated and enjoyed greater rights than later generations of slaves would. [table][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]

[/td][/tr][tr][td]"Doop-Boeck" -- BAPTISMS FROM 1639 TO 1697 IN THE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH, New York. Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York.[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]However, slaves also saw conversion to Christianity as a road to freedom. In the early years of settlement, for instance, fugitive slaves from South Carolina, headed for Florida, where the Spanish Crown promised them freedom as a reward for conversion. Slaveholders in the British North American colonies became increasingly fearful that Christianization of slaves would lead to demands for emancipation. In 1667 Virginia passed a law declaring that conversion did not change the status of a person from slave to free. Other colonies passed similar laws during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. [/td][/tr][/table]

  
Not only did this change how American slavery worked, but it also changed Christianity around the world. This brought in the "pie in the sky" version of christianity, suggesting that you wait until you get to "heaven" to gain riches. However, there was still a problem for those who were deemed "black". as "The Curse of Ham" suggested that not only Black people serve white people in this life, but in the "hereafter" as well.
[h1]Curse of Ham[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Noah damning Ham, 19th century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov

The Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to a story in the Book of Genesis 9:20-27 in which Ham's father Noah places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, after Ham "saw his father's nakedness" because of drunkenness in Noah's tent.

Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.[sup][1][/sup]

The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup] They were often called Hamites and were believed to have descended through Canaan or his older brothers. Proponents of slavery in the US increasingly invoked the 'curse of Ham' in the US during the 19th century, as a response to the growing abolitionist movement.[sup][4


____
[/sup]
Malcolm was a great man, stood for the right thing, then was a symbol of Black masculinity when it was seriously needed.

  

 

[antonlavey]

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

Son posted the Curse of Ham, thinking he was spittin' knowledge....

. One of my aversions to the judeochristian religions has to do with how it perpetuates racist and prejudiced agendas.

 

[antonlavey]

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

Son posted the Curse of Ham, thinking he was spittin' knowledge....

. One of my aversions to the judeochristian religions has to do with how it perpetuates racist and prejudiced agendas.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

 

[torgriffith]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So according to the sentiments expressed in this thread by certain black NTers, Is Obama a bad thing for black people? Would black people prefer if Obama (who has been compared to MLK as an Uncle Tom and puppet) had never been elected?

Is Obama the puppet of the white man and a conspiracy to suppress the black race?

Word to that Immortal Technique song.

It's all about the image projected. Oba,a is related to Bush and Cheney. It's just time for them to show  black manblack woman image in the whitehouse. 

"It's about sending a message."

So you didn't answer my question, so because of "pride" and "sending" a message....would you rather NOT have had MLK or Obama exist? And be honest would this extremely pro-black, separatist, militant black President have won?

And don't a lot of black people in this country have a distant white relative? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't Malcom X himself have a few drops of white blood. Dude looks whiter than Obama or is he just real "light skinned".


So Obama didn't win because he was voted for, he won cause SOMEONE (Who you still haven't defined or pointed out) wanted to see a Black Man or Black Woman in the white house?

Now this someone, if they have a grand master plan to hurt the black race.....how the hell did this help?


I want you to think deeply about what I'm asking before you answer. I really want to know.

I didn't say that. It's just when you look at a media outlet, (TV, RADIO) you recognize figure heads and archetypes who represent ideals. Like how one cheers for the character they can relate too in a movie.  These are the people (MLK, Obama, Malcom X) that represent characters and that's how politics work. They give you the character that you can look at and believe without even knowing who the person really is. And when you see a black woman and a black man now residing in the white house, it is a message to the world on what time it is in "his"story. The president is not the king of America. He is the ceo of the corporation and the board of directors control all the decisions basically like any other corporation. 
And it's not because he is related to a white family. It's because he's related to the nazi lineage regime that's what I'm saying and all throughout history it has been characters from the same few families acting out roles carrying on their own agenda. We are pretty familiar with nazism on the surface from our education system that force fed us the history of the holocaust and the nazi army. Little is touched on until recently in movies about the social experimentation, manipulation of politics and gov't etc.(Shutter Island type movies). This idea of a country and where it's heading is just another aspect of  the agenda. 

So do you believe there is only one agenda that exists that has little to do with race and all of us black or white are being manipulated? Do you believe all the percieved different agendas that exist in politics are distractions and none of that really matters? Do you believe everything the government does, no matter how much good a government does, is all at face value?



Eg. Obama's healthcare plan and "Social" programs he's getting called a socialist/ Nazi for by your definition would hurt corporations tremendously. Is this a price the corporations puppeteering Obama have to pay for a grand masterplan to make even more money?

Anyhow I also want more info on this family and what their agenda is. I'm guessing by your post, it's to make as much money as possible.....how are they being helped by Obama's presidency?

I don't know if that makes any sense.


   Was Obama "christined" by these people to become President? Was everything in Obama's life controlled from birth with the ultimate goal of making him the president, to keep this family in power?

Yes. I believe we are stuck looking at a play of government on that is a smoking mirror to what real transactions take place. To understand where I'm coming from when I say Nazism, you have to understand it from the occult aspect  and see what they were trying to create. 
wiki link on Black Sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)

IMO our gov't is a stalemate to keep us busy while they are building the world as they see fit. It's not about money because money is the liquid current (currency) with which the flow around the globe and manipulate interest. If you put a high monetized price on a commodity, people will gravitate towards it. I mean look at how cocaine went from a pharmaceutical staple, then from 1906(Food and Drug Act) and on it had been criminalized/demonized to the point were cocaine crack trap music is the official bad boy image for our generation. 100 yrs ago, your coke dealer would served you up at the drug store along with a ice cream soda.  

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."-Mayer Amschel Rothschild 

The money is the whip and whatever value it is affixed to commerce commences. That right there is manipulation IMO. 

Think about what our society values and that's where the money goes. 

Chek out this documentary:

[h1]1. The Ring of Power - Present Past [part 1 of 29][/h1]

 

[torgriffith]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by torgriffith

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So according to the sentiments expressed in this thread by certain black NTers, Is Obama a bad thing for black people? Would black people prefer if Obama (who has been compared to MLK as an Uncle Tom and puppet) had never been elected?

Is Obama the puppet of the white man and a conspiracy to suppress the black race?

Word to that Immortal Technique song.

It's all about the image projected. Oba,a is related to Bush and Cheney. It's just time for them to show  black manblack woman image in the whitehouse. 

"It's about sending a message."

So you didn't answer my question, so because of "pride" and "sending" a message....would you rather NOT have had MLK or Obama exist? And be honest would this extremely pro-black, separatist, militant black President have won?

And don't a lot of black people in this country have a distant white relative? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but doesn't Malcom X himself have a few drops of white blood. Dude looks whiter than Obama or is he just real "light skinned".


So Obama didn't win because he was voted for, he won cause SOMEONE (Who you still haven't defined or pointed out) wanted to see a Black Man or Black Woman in the white house?

Now this someone, if they have a grand master plan to hurt the black race.....how the hell did this help?


I want you to think deeply about what I'm asking before you answer. I really want to know.

I didn't say that. It's just when you look at a media outlet, (TV, RADIO) you recognize figure heads and archetypes who represent ideals. Like how one cheers for the character they can relate too in a movie.  These are the people (MLK, Obama, Malcom X) that represent characters and that's how politics work. They give you the character that you can look at and believe without even knowing who the person really is. And when you see a black woman and a black man now residing in the white house, it is a message to the world on what time it is in "his"story. The president is not the king of America. He is the ceo of the corporation and the board of directors control all the decisions basically like any other corporation. 
And it's not because he is related to a white family. It's because he's related to the nazi lineage regime that's what I'm saying and all throughout history it has been characters from the same few families acting out roles carrying on their own agenda. We are pretty familiar with nazism on the surface from our education system that force fed us the history of the holocaust and the nazi army. Little is touched on until recently in movies about the social experimentation, manipulation of politics and gov't etc.(Shutter Island type movies). This idea of a country and where it's heading is just another aspect of  the agenda. 

So do you believe there is only one agenda that exists that has little to do with race and all of us black or white are being manipulated? Do you believe all the percieved different agendas that exist in politics are distractions and none of that really matters? Do you believe everything the government does, no matter how much good a government does, is all at face value?



Eg. Obama's healthcare plan and "Social" programs he's getting called a socialist/ Nazi for by your definition would hurt corporations tremendously. Is this a price the corporations puppeteering Obama have to pay for a grand masterplan to make even more money?

Anyhow I also want more info on this family and what their agenda is. I'm guessing by your post, it's to make as much money as possible.....how are they being helped by Obama's presidency?

I don't know if that makes any sense.


   Was Obama "christined" by these people to become President? Was everything in Obama's life controlled from birth with the ultimate goal of making him the president, to keep this family in power?

Yes. I believe we are stuck looking at a play of government on that is a smoking mirror to what real transactions take place. To understand where I'm coming from when I say Nazism, you have to understand it from the occult aspect  and see what they were trying to create. 
wiki link on Black Sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)

IMO our gov't is a stalemate to keep us busy while they are building the world as they see fit. It's not about money because money is the liquid current (currency) with which the flow around the globe and manipulate interest. If you put a high monetized price on a commodity, people will gravitate towards it. I mean look at how cocaine went from a pharmaceutical staple, then from 1906(Food and Drug Act) and on it had been criminalized/demonized to the point were cocaine crack trap music is the official bad boy image for our generation. 100 yrs ago, your coke dealer would served you up at the drug store along with a ice cream soda.  

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."-Mayer Amschel Rothschild 

The money is the whip and whatever value it is affixed to commerce commences. That right there is manipulation IMO. 

Think about what our society values and that's where the money goes. 

Chek out this documentary:

[h1]1. The Ring of Power - Present Past [part 1 of 29][/h1]

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

-I'm not the only one who has give their opinion on which they prefer. I have said I respect Malcom even though I don't completely agree with him. Some NTers in this thread that don't agree with MLK didn't even give him the same respect.


-White people weren't "comfortable" with King. People are insinuating cause King preached anti-violence and Malcom did the opposite, white people were afraid of Malcom. White people were NOT Afraid of violent/militant attacks by black people. They would have squashed it like a bug. For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. You can argue whatever it is you want but MLKs approach worked. If that was done by white people it backfired BADLY.

  


-The issue here is what Malcom was preaching is more "glamorous", but it would have gotten ugly and black people would have suffered more for it. I'm talking possible retaliation of genocidic proportions.
Some black male egos and pride would never accept the fact that non-violent protest can be a very powerful tool to effect change. It's been proven (Gandhi, MLK and Mandela)

 . You have to be smart about how you approach your battles, there are some battles (battle of arms) some people just wouldn't win.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

-I'm not the only one who has give their opinion on which they prefer. I have said I respect Malcom even though I don't completely agree with him. Some NTers in this thread that don't agree with MLK didn't even give him the same respect.


-White people weren't "comfortable" with King. People are insinuating cause King preached anti-violence and Malcom did the opposite, white people were afraid of Malcom. White people were NOT Afraid of violent/militant attacks by black people. They would have squashed it like a bug. For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. You can argue whatever it is you want but MLKs approach worked. If that was done by white people it backfired BADLY.

  


-The issue here is what Malcom was preaching is more "glamorous", but it would have gotten ugly and black people would have suffered more for it. I'm talking possible retaliation of genocidic proportions.
Some black male egos and pride would never accept the fact that non-violent protest can be a very powerful tool to effect change. It's been proven (Gandhi, MLK and Mandela)

 . You have to be smart about how you approach your battles, there are some battles (battle of arms) some people just wouldn't win.

 

[pusha c]

and he doesn't think he knows it all

 

[pusha c]

and he doesn't think he knows it all

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

-I'm not the only one who has give their opinion on which they prefer. I have said I respect Malcom even though I don't completely agree with him. Some NTers in this thread that don't agree with MLK didn't even give him the same respect.


-White people weren't "comfortable" with King. People are insinuating cause King preached anti-violence and Malcom did the opposite, white people were afraid of Malcom. White people were NOT Afraid of violent/militant attacks by black people. They would have squashed it like a bug. For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. You can argue whatever it is you want but MLKs approach worked. If that was done by white people it backfired BADLY.

  


-The issue here is what Malcom was preaching is more "glamorous", but it would have gotten ugly and black people would have suffered more for it. I'm talking possible retaliation of genocidic proportions.
Some black male egos and pride would never accept the fact that non-violent protest can be a very powerful tool to effect change. It's been proven (Gandhi, MLK and Mandela)

 . You have to be smart about how you approach your battles, there are some battles (battle of arms) some people just wouldn't win.

As opposed to the White male ego?
What was the point of typing all of that in bold?

I am not going to attack your beliefs, but dont you understand that White people were afraid of Malcolm, due to him coming out of nowhere?At that time, much of America knew nothing of Islam, and he wasn't a part of the system. The Black muslim movement scared White people to death. Also it wasn't about what you call the "militancy" initiating violence. It was about if  racist White people were disrepectful, the confrontation with those who shared the same mindset of Malcolm, would end up with a physical confrontation that racist White people really did not want. They were comfortable with attacking the non violent faction of the movement, as they knew that they would not fight back, especially in the south.

It was either you dealt with Malcolm's set, or King's. Guess who was the safe bet? But it was that balance is what gave King leverage.

While King's style gave him favoritism with people such as yourself, it was really people like Thurgood Marshall and Malcolm who really knocked down the door in the fight for equality. King's movement provided the MORAL argument, but Marshall provided the LEGAL punch, with Malcolm creating fear. Each, King Malcolm and Marshall, were equally important, then equally effective. 
  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

LOL Nat Turner, all I was saying is both Islam and Christianity were forced on African people. You wasted your time typing about the Curse of Ham, I have made that argument several times on NT. There you go again, arguing for the sake of arguing. I would venture as far as to say I agree with you.....if I think you're saying what you're saying.

Black people can practice whatever the hell they want, my argument is with people who say Islam or Christianity is an inherently "black" religion. Africans have been enslaved by Muslims.

My point to you was that Malcolm and King complimented each other. The rest of the post was just a contribution to the thread, not directed at you.

There you go being "too sensitive" again.

 BTW, I am not a theist.
  

-I'm not the only one who has give their opinion on which they prefer. I have said I respect Malcom even though I don't completely agree with him. Some NTers in this thread that don't agree with MLK didn't even give him the same respect.


-White people weren't "comfortable" with King. People are insinuating cause King preached anti-violence and Malcom did the opposite, white people were afraid of Malcom. White people were NOT Afraid of violent/militant attacks by black people. They would have squashed it like a bug. For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. You can argue whatever it is you want but MLKs approach worked. If that was done by white people it backfired BADLY.

  


-The issue here is what Malcom was preaching is more "glamorous", but it would have gotten ugly and black people would have suffered more for it. I'm talking possible retaliation of genocidic proportions.
Some black male egos and pride would never accept the fact that non-violent protest can be a very powerful tool to effect change. It's been proven (Gandhi, MLK and Mandela)

 . You have to be smart about how you approach your battles, there are some battles (battle of arms) some people just wouldn't win.

As opposed to the White male ego?
What was the point of typing all of that in bold?

I am not going to attack your beliefs, but dont you understand that White people were afraid of Malcolm, due to him coming out of nowhere?At that time, much of America knew nothing of Islam, and he wasn't a part of the system. The Black muslim movement scared White people to death. Also it wasn't about what you call the "militancy" initiating violence. It was about if  racist White people were disrepectful, the confrontation with those who shared the same mindset of Malcolm, would end up with a physical confrontation that racist White people really did not want. They were comfortable with attacking the non violent faction of the movement, as they knew that they would not fight back, especially in the south.

It was either you dealt with Malcolm's set, or King's. Guess who was the safe bet? But it was that balance is what gave King leverage.

While King's style gave him favoritism with people such as yourself, it was really people like Thurgood Marshall and Malcolm who really knocked down the door in the fight for equality. King's movement provided the MORAL argument, but Marshall provided the LEGAL punch, with Malcolm creating fear. Each, King Malcolm and Marshall, were equally important, then equally effective. 
  

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

and he doesn't think he knows it all

Opinions bro......opinions. I'm not calling my opposition in here "know it alls". If I cosigned everything I've heard from people who disagreed with me would that make me less of a "know it all"? I take what I know/evidence I have and formulate my own opinions just like everyone else.

Furthermore, My discussion with torgifith (spelling)  is essentially me asking questions. I do hold certain level of curiosity in these discussions.  

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

and he doesn't think he knows it all

Opinions bro......opinions. I'm not calling my opposition in here "know it alls". If I cosigned everything I've heard from people who disagreed with me would that make me less of a "know it all"? I take what I know/evidence I have and formulate my own opinions just like everyone else.

Furthermore, My discussion with torgifith (spelling)  is essentially me asking questions. I do hold certain level of curiosity in these discussions.  

 

[pusha c]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

and he doesn't think he knows it all

Opinions bro......opinions. I'm not calling my opposition in here "know it alls". If I cosigned everything I've heard from people who disagreed with me would that make me less of a "know it all"? I take what I know/evidence I have and formulate my own opinions just like everyone else.

Furthermore, My discussion with torgifith (spelling)  is essentially me asking questions. I do hold certain level of curiosity in these discussions.  

respect... i guess i just don't understand the basis of some of your opinions

 

[pusha c]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by PUSHA C

and he doesn't think he knows it all

Opinions bro......opinions. I'm not calling my opposition in here "know it alls". If I cosigned everything I've heard from people who disagreed with me would that make me less of a "know it all"? I take what I know/evidence I have and formulate my own opinions just like everyone else.

Furthermore, My discussion with torgifith (spelling)  is essentially me asking questions. I do hold certain level of curiosity in these discussions.  

respect... i guess i just don't understand the basis of some of your opinions

 

[got shoes]

thread has been hijacked to a certain extent, but carry on. interesting things in here

 

[got shoes]

thread has been hijacked to a certain extent, but carry on. interesting things in here